Lucido v. Vita

JOHNSON, J.:

Each of these actions was originally commenced in the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna. The first (No. 7257) was an action of forcible entry and detainer. The second (No. 7258) was an action to recover a sum of money due from the defendant to the plaintiffs for the use and occupation of the same lands involved in the first action (No. 7257).

Each of said action was commenced and prosecuted separately in the court of the said justice of the peace, as well as in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Laguna. In each case the judgment of the justice of the peace upon a demurrer was in favor of the defendant. In each case the judgment of the Court of First Instance was in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendants is the appellant in each causes, by reason of their intimate relation, have been heard and discussed together. We can see no reason why, in view of the questions presented, the facts and the law relating to each cause may not be discussed in the same decision. It may be noted that the complaints which constituted the basis of the actions in the court of the justice of the peace also constituted the basis of the plaintiff's actions in the Court of First Instance.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint in the first cause (No. 7257) the following facts: I. Plaintiffs and defendant are both residents of the municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna, Philippines Islands. II. The plaintiffs are the owners of each and all of the following the parcels situated n said municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, P.I.: [Here follows a technical description of the lands in question.] III.

The plaintiff has been in possession of each and all of said parcels of land as lessee from January 5, 1892, to date, under the condition expressly stipulated that he would pay therefor as semiannual rent the sum of 48 pesos three and a half reales Mexican currency, equal and equivalent to the sum of P48.44 Philippine currency, payable at the end of each half year. IV. The defendant lessee has not paid the rent due on said parcels of land from February 5, 18932, to January 5, 1904, despite the demands made upon him, wherefore the plaintiff Leonardo Lucido instituted in this court an action for dispossession against the defendant in February of said year, said action having been terminated by and in virtue of a compromise between said parties, set forth in the records of the justice of the peace court as follows: "In the justice of the peace court of Nagcarlan, March 2, 1904; the parties to this suit being present, the justice of the peace called for the plaintiff, who stated that he affirmed the complaint in all its parts and begged the court to proceed to trial and to render judgment in his favor for the remedies requested in his complaint.

Being informed thereof, the defendant answered that he had not refused to pay the corresponding rent, as to Manuel Lucido in his lifetime, part of the sum reason and finally I paid once to Mariano Manas a sum of twenty-five pesos on account, said Manas being the authorized agent of the present plaintiff Leonardo Lucido and for this reason I beg the court, as well as the plaintiff, not to take away from me the lands I hold on lease, for whatever be the sum resulting from the settlement I am ready to have made, I promise to pay four hundred pesos until the 10th of the present month of March, 1904, and hereafter a hundred pesos at the end of each month in case I should owe a larger sum.

The plaintiff agreed to all the defendant said and proposed to the court that for determination and examination of the instrument of payment mentioned by the defendant for calculation of the sum that he owed on account of the lease a commission be appointed of two persons, one for each party, naming Camilo Lirio, a resident of this town. Being informed thereof, the defendant on his part named Agripino Viriña. In such condition this case was declared closed, with the costs against both parties and they signed to which I certify.

(Sgd.) "PEDRO SUEZA, "Auxiliary Justice of the Peace. "For the plaintiff: (Sgd.) "FLORENCIO MANALO. (Sgd.) "ROMUALDO VITA."

V. The defendant has not complied with his obligation to pay the sum of four hundred pesos(P400) on March 10, 1904, as he promised in the foregoing compromise, nor has he at nay time and up to date paid it, in spite of the due demands that have been repeatedly made upon him. VI. Settlement of the plaintiff's debt for rent due from January 5, 1892, up to January 5, 1904, is still pending and will in any event be the subject of another action.

VII. Nor has the defendant paid, either wholly or partially, the rent due for lease of said nine parcels of land from January 5 of the present year, 1910, being twelve semiannual payments due amounting to five hundred and eighty-one pesos and twenty-eight centavos(P581.28) Philippine currency, in spite of the friendly and repeated demands made upon him and in spite of the fact that over three days have elapsed since the last demand duly made upon him. VIII.

In view of the foregoing facts, on the eleventh of the present month the plaintiff's demanded of the defendant that he immediately vacate the nine parcels of land above described and deliver them without loss of time to the plaintiffs, considering the lease terminated from that time, if he had not already done so, with the notice that if he did not do this he would be sued for a thousand pesos(P1,000) a year from January 5, 1910, in the corresponding action for continued occupation and for losses and damages, but still said defendant refused to do so. IX. The plaintiff's will annually suffer losses and damages by the defendant's retention of said nine parcels of land, until the same are finally delivered to them.

Therefore, the plaintiffs beg the court, after the due proceedings, to render judgment in their favor and against the defendant: (1) Decreeing dispossession and removal from each and all of the nine parcels of land above described by the defendant and restitution of each and all of them to the plaintiffs, for failure in payment of rent due and also for illegal detainer thereof; (2) sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of four hundred pesos(P400) Philippine currency, to which he obligated himself in the compromise of March 4, 1904, with legal interest from the 11th of said month of March, 1904, when he became delinquent; (3) sentencing the defendant to pay the rent due for the twelve six-month periods that have passed since January 5, 1904, up to January 5, 1910, that is, the sum of five hundred and eighty-one pesos and twenty-eight centavos(P581.28) Philippine currency, with interests from the date of the filing of this complaint; (4) sentencing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of a thousand pesos (P1,000) a year from January 5, 1910, until restitution be made of the plaintiffs, or the proportional part for the time elapsed, for losses and damages; and (5) sentencing the defendant to pay the costs of the present suit.

The plaintiff further asks the court for any other remedy in his favor that may be proper in equity and justice. Manila, for Laguna, P. I., March 15, 1910. In the second cause (No. 7258) the plaintiffs alleged as the basis of their right the following facts: I. The plaintiffs and the defendant are both residents of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna, P.I. II.

The plaintiffs are the owner of nine (9) parcels of land, five situated in the barrio of Ibabang, Balinakon, and four on the barrio of Oples, of this municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, P. I., the respective descriptions whereof need not be entered in this complaint for the purposes of this suit, which the defendant has occupied and possessed as lessee from January 5, 1892, up to January 5, 1904, under the expressly stipulated condition that he would pay as semiannual rent for the said nine parcels of land the sum of 48 pesos and three and a half reales Mexican currency, equal and equivalent to the sum of P48.44 Philippine currency. III. The defendant has not paid the rent due during said lapse of time, amounting to the sum of P1,162.56 Philippine currency, with the exception of the sums of P25, P50, and P300, more or less, receipts having been issued to him, which he paid on account of his debt because of said rent, for which reason the plaintiff, Leonardo Lucido, for himself and on behalf of his brother, the other plaintiff, Roman Lucido, had to file suit for dispossession against the defendant in this court on February 13, 1904, the matter having been terminated by virtue of a compromise between the parties, drawn up in the following terms.

[Same as the compromise appearing in Clause IV of the complaint in case No. 7257, ante.] IV. The defendant, although duly invited and requested by the plaintiffs and by the commission appointed in the compromise above quoted, refused to concur in the settlement of his debt, alleging that he had nothing to settle and that he had paid everything, when in fact he is still in debt to the plaintiff for the rent of said nine parcels of land and said settlement is still pending, and because of this refusal of the defendant the commission resigned. V. If a statement should be made by the parties in the sense above set forth, the following result would appear: Credit Debit.

Rent due for the six-month period included between the dates January 5, 1892, and January 5, 1904, at P48.44 each P25.00 P1,102.56 Payments on account, with receipts issued to the defendant 50.00 300.00 Amount promised for March 10, 1904, which is no yet paid but which is now the subject matter of a separate suit between the parties 400.00 775.00 Balance in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant